"The big eastern interests include all those eastern food processors that benefit from the Western Wheat Board which provides..."

-> I haven't heard about this, and you probably know more about it than I do. Problems like this is why we have elections, Chad (may I assume this is your name?). You vote for politicians who show an interest in resolving this problem in a equitable manner, simple as that. You don't break up a great country over bushels of wheat.

"Let us not forget the equalization formula that punishes the provinces that straddle the "haves and have not" line, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who get penalized for developing their own economies."

-> Ontario paid through its nose and its ears because until recently, it was a 'have' province. In fact, I will bet that it still pays through its nose and ears because it is a more densely populated province, and taxes collected from dense urban areas tend to be used to cover for the losses that occur when you provide infrastructure and services to sparsely populated areas, which is inevitably uneconomical.

"It also does not take much investigation to find where the bulk of the Liberal's spending promises are headed, straight to the GTA and southern Ontario while the West is expected to gratefully foot the bill."

-> Refer to my point above. I doubt if any significant amount of money will be transferred out of the West for the benefit of these regions, and even if it does, so what? We take turns looking out for each other, that's how cooperative and mature members of societies work.

"As for the Liberal's fiscal legacy, anyone can balance the books by offloading their bills onto someone else.

I watched my property taxes in the '90s go from $1,800 a year in '95 to almost $10,000 in 2000 because the municipalty could not make ends meet because the Federal government dumped everything from infastructure to health spending onto the provinces, who, in turn dumped it on the municipalities"

-> This looks like a problem not reserved for the Liberals only. Hasn't the Conservatives been pretty profligate in the last couple of years? But this blame game is pointless and without end, so let us not start it.

"Can we also delve into the gun registry which has labelled my Grandfather a criminal for having a .22 for killing coyotes and gophers? But, as Alan Rock so humbly proclaimed years ago "has saved many lives." Yet we are waiting to hear from just one of these grateful people. $2 billion, more employees than a bank headquarters and no results."

-> Perhaps your personal example has blinded you, but tougher gun ownersihp laws probably DID save lives. Can you deny that with an honest heart? It probably stopped some nutjob somewhere in the country from getting his hands on firearms, and I've seen quite a few who qualify as nutjobs.

While not an AVID consumer of the Economist I have noted on the other side of 40 years of age that the Economist's take/content on Canada, from my disTINCTly canadian perspective, is markedly LITE.

This calls into question the the content (and our associated statements of opinion) we devoured over the years relating to other countries/companies published by this "stately" institution/magazine.

Re. THE IGNATIEFF REVIVAL ...
- the title draws us in to expect something more than hearsay/opinion/commentary

A revival implies grassroots ... where are the witnesses, interviews/comments from participants at a grassroots level.

HINTS and INNUENDO have gone a long way in the past to converge as truth ... high time the Economist become the benchmark we expect it to be and a fount of knowledge gained by the din of hard work ... as opposed to broad summaries of local newspapers by an aspiring hack (local to boot!?).

Why does Michael Ignatieff represent 'big eastern interests'? Please do enlighten me. I've never heard Ontarians complaining about Harper's western favouritism while billions were being transferred from that province to the federal coffers, and even voted Conservative in the last election.

The big eastern interests include all those eastern food processors that benefit from the Western Wheat Board which provides them with cheap wheat and barley, as well as Eastern farm interests that get a premium on non-wheat board marketed grain. Remember it is illegal for a Western Canadian producer to sell his wheat or barley to anyone other than the government. It's a win win for everyone involved in agri-business east of Manitoba.

Let us not forget the equalization formula that punishes the provinces that straddle the "haves and have not" line, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who get penalized for developing their own economies.

It also does not take much investigation to find where the bulk of the Liberal's spending promises are headed, straight to the GTA and southern Ontario while the West is expected to gratefully foot the bill.

As for the Liberal's fiscal legacy, anyone can balance the books by offloading their bills onto someone else.

I watched my property taxes in the '90s go from $1,800 a year in '95 to almost $10,000 in 2000 because the municipalty could not make ends meet because the Federal government dumped everything from infastructure to health spending onto the provinces, who, in turn dumped it on the municipalities.

Can we also delve into the gun registry which has labelled my Grandfather a criminal for having a .22 for killing coyotes and gophers? But, as Alan Rock so humbly proclaimed years ago "has saved many lives." Yet we are waiting to hear from just one of these grateful people. $2 billion, more employees than a bank headquarters and no results.

All you need to do is ask any Liberal turncoat in Western Canada, whether they retire from politics, join the NDP or the Conservatives, they all say the same thing, that the federal Liberal party has no use for the West.

The question Canadians must ask about Mr. Ignatieff, their Liberal Party leader is: Is he real? I don't think he is what you see is what you get. Behind the fascade of academic eminence lurks an ambitious politician seeking to taste the sweetness of power of the prime minister's office. That is why he always chooses to be vague and general, manoeuvring and manipulating public opinions to his favour. As a Harvard man, he is well polished to play the role of an irresistible charmer. Whether or not this man of impressive image can and will deliver on the business of substance remains to be seen. I am not holding my breath!

Mr Ignatieff is a passionate Canadian (so he says) who is bright, engaging and articulate. His Canadian pedigree is impeccable, while still foreign enough to be able to reach out to immigrant Canadians.

Beyond doubt this man has the brains to be the leader of this great nation, but that is not enough. He needs to demonstrate leadership, political acumen and national policies that unify a fractured party and a divided country; no small task for a man who has never held political office.

I see continued strong Conservative fiscal management and monetary policy as being the salvation of this country.

---

By continued strong Conservative fiscal management you must mean turning ten years of Liberal budget surpluses into a huge budget deficit almost overnight? Oh right, blame the recession! Hey, everybody else is doing it!

What I can't understand is why the Liberals were criticized so much during those budget surpluses as 'overtaxing' Canadians, because they a bit more money than they needed. If Harper had kept that money for a rainy day, we'd be in a lot better position right now. Instead, he squandered it faster than was almost possible, and now we're looking at years of deficits AGAIN. Cue the Liberals, to clean up the mess.

Would you run your personal finances that way? A lot of people do, but prudent people save money each year and it comes in handy when it's needed (i.e. when times are tough).

The leaders of federal parties have consistently been white, but it's inaccurate to say that the parties, particularly the Liberals, are "too white", whatever the barometer is there. A significant number of MPs and party power brokers are non-white. Sikhs have a particularly influential role in the party, and there are a number of non-whites in the caucuses of each party. It would certainly be refreshing to see a Prime Minister that is not a white male, but ethnic minorities are certainly not excluded or disenfranchised in Canada.

The British have civilized newspapers. Let's not sully it with the kind of boorish comments that we are used to seeing in ours.

@ Tommy Smyth

You're right.

@ Anthony Probus

The assertion that Harper is more aligned with U.S. interests because he didn't act as George W. Bush did during the Beijing Olympics is a curious one. Furthermore, since when is being a good neighbour to the world's largest customer a bad idea?

As an addendum, the world would probably be a better place if Ignatieff and Harper cast-off both of their parties and led the country by themselves. These two are strong leaders but the parties they lead are filled by Canada's moronic dregs.

The reason Iggy hasn't yet declared any solid policies is because Canada's Liberal party is a "sign of our times" political movement, not as ideologically fixated as the conservative parties out of the west.

The liberals can flip flop any issue, and place a "liberal" spin on it to entice their voter base. The conservatives are generally fixated on what they represent, however they are confused about how to go about attaining it.

In the last 20 years our Liberals have been more conservative than conservatives could have ever imagined, and our conservatives brought some of the most liberal policies to our country.

Iggy is simply waiting for something politically fashionable to emerge for him to market.

And I would argue that Stephen Harper goes far beyond the call of duty when it comes to supporting the American position as an ally.

GWB attended the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Harper didn't. Both of them were busy criticizing China on Tibet and other issues, but when it came down to it, GWB dropped his previous criticisms of China to better serve the American interest with that country. Harper kept going at it to better serve the American interest at the expense of the Canadian prospects with China. Harper is almost more loyal to the states than he is to Canada when it comes to diplomacy.

whosyourchaddie/

Why does Michael Ignatieff represent 'big eastern interests'? Please do enlighten me. I've never heard Ontarians complaining about Harper's western favouritism while billions were being transferred from that province to the federal coffers, and even voted Conservative in the last election.

I respect Mr Ignatieff for his works and his ideas, but as mentioned by others I have yet to see any real flair for leadership. Flair isn't necessary, and I do think he is more than capable, however what the Liberal party is missing is a real lack of seasoned veterans in their top ranks. During these economically woeful times Canada could be poised to really expand its influence and economy internationally, if not for all the fighting at the top.

There is being supportive of an ally and our largest trading partner and then there is taking ones marching orders from within a foreign countries highest level of government; in my view Mr. Ignatieff is far too close to the flame for my comfort level.

In general I think I sense from the leftist faction posting here a real sensitivity to Mr. Ignatieff and what is shaping up to be a high jacked Liberal Party. I think the Liberals are not really sure what they have on their hands.

I suspect that as soon as it is revealed that taxes are to be increased and a cap and trade system (carbon tax) in line with the US self-destruction of its economy, will result in the plummeting of Liberal support across Canada.

I see continued strong Conservative fiscal management and monetary policy as being the salvation of this country.

I think Michael Ignatieff is having a hard time defining himself as as Liberal leader because he is jockeying for the center ground with Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper has positioned his party as slightly right of center politically and keeps his caucus under tight control to maintain this perception.

Michael Ignatieff wants his party slightly to the left of center politically. This puts him in a difficult position because he can hardly criticise Government decisions if he agrees with them. He and his handlers are also doing an admirable job of keeping the Liberal caucus under control so as not to feed ammunition to the Conservatives. He learned that from Stephen Harper.